Photograph: James Wagner
James Wagner posted the above image Sunday with the administrative note that Pace Wildenstein shows will not be posted or reviewed on his site, bloggy, and artcal due to their no photo policy. I’m adding my name to his list. Until the gallery’s policy changes I will not review Pace shows on AFC, or for any of the publications I write for including, Time Out NY, ArtReview.com, The L Magazine, and numerous others.
Additional information: James Wagner on photo prohibitions and fair use.
{ 12 comments }
You’re lucky they let you photograph the sign
You’re lucky they let you photograph the sign
i wonder why they decided do make (or enforce) this… i remember taking many photos of roslyn drexler and tara donovan, with no problems. maybe it’s just for this show?
i wonder why they decided do make (or enforce) this… i remember taking many photos of roslyn drexler and tara donovan, with no problems. maybe it’s just for this show?
It’s a gallery policy, and not specific to one show. I discussed the gallery’s no photo policy with their PR person last month. According to their publicist there were specific instances that led them to the decision that it be necessary to restrict the general public from taking pictures. Lord knows what they were. The exchange was entirely pleasant, but I just don’t agree with their policy.
It’s a gallery policy, and not specific to one show. I discussed the gallery’s no photo policy with their PR person last month. According to their publicist there were specific instances that led them to the decision that it be necessary to restrict the general public from taking pictures. Lord knows what they were. The exchange was entirely pleasant, but I just don’t agree with their policy.
I had no problem when I shot the Bridget Riley show in January, but when I went to shoot the recent Nozkowski installation, the no-photos policy was in effect. I ended up pulling images from their site (which were very good), but I have also made the decision to not write about subsequent shows.
Really, if they’re concerned about their artists’ copyright issues, they shouldn’t post images on their own site, which are legally usable for reportage. And, they’d have to dismantle Google.
I had no problem when I shot the Bridget Riley show in January, but when I went to shoot the recent Nozkowski installation, the no-photos policy was in effect. I ended up pulling images from their site (which were very good), but I have also made the decision to not write about subsequent shows.
Really, if they’re concerned about their artists’ copyright issues, they shouldn’t post images on their own site, which are legally usable for reportage. And, they’d have to dismantle Google.
Very odd. Could it be that they want to have control over who covers their exhibits as far as the press is concerned?
Very odd. Could it be that they want to have control over who covers their exhibits as far as the press is concerned?
It’s a practical way of keeping track of their press. I don’t know how much of that has to do with this though. I suspect it just has to do with them not wanting poor representations of the work posted on flickr. The thing is, everyone knows what they are getting when they go to that site, so I really don’t see what the problem is. If I were them, I’d invest my resources in improving their shitty website. A wealth of professionally taken images available online would obviously solve any issues they had with the random ones people are taking.
It’s a practical way of keeping track of their press. I don’t know how much of that has to do with this though. I suspect it just has to do with them not wanting poor representations of the work posted on flickr. The thing is, everyone knows what they are getting when they go to that site, so I really don’t see what the problem is. If I were them, I’d invest my resources in improving their shitty website. A wealth of professionally taken images available online would obviously solve any issues they had with the random ones people are taking.
Comments on this entry are closed.